BY VISWANath VENKAtESH, V. ramesh AND ANNE P MASSEY UNDERSTANDING USABILITY in Mobile commerce RAMIFICATIONS FOR WIRELESS DESIGN: E#M The great advantage lthe telephone/ possesses over every other form of electrical apparatus consists in the fact that it requires no skill to operate the instrument. ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL, I878 My department is in possession of knowledge of the details of the telephone, and e possible lse of the telephone is limited. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF. BRITISH POST OFFICE. I88 Theres an old story about the person who wished his computer were as easy to as his telephone. That wish has come true, since I no longer know how to use ATTRIBUTED TO B STROUSTRUP. INVENTOR OF C++ Over the past 200 years, technological could companies capture or create breakthroughs and new economies value? What capabilities were required have emerged with remarkable regular- to make e-commerce viable? ity. In 1800, no information, goods, or Today, the mobile Internet is emerg. services moved faster than they had for ing even faster, in part because thousands of years. Two centuries of providers, content partners, customers, rapid technological advances and inno- and investors are leveraging lessons vation have evolved communications from e-commerce. Cellular carriers and commerce from being tied to net-I both nationally and globally, have made works of waterways and (literally) significant advances to horsepower to being tied to digital eration data or"wireless Web" elecommunications networks. In the and mobile, "m, " -commerce last half-decade, we have witnessed the defined, m-commerce involves an emergence and power of the Internet as emerging set of applications and ser- a means for electronic,"e, " -commerce. vices people can access from their Web- In the emerging period of e-commerce, enabled mobile devices [10]. Yet, many questions were raised: Would m-commerce is facing many obstacles consumers adopt it? How would they as an emerging market, particularly in behave? What did they want? How the U.S. For example, in addition to COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM December 2003/Vol 46, No 12 53
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM December 2003/Vol. 46, No. 12 53 “The great advantage [the telephone] possesses over every other form of electrical apparatus consists in the fact that it requires no skill to operate the instrument.” —Alexander Graham Bell, 1878 “My department is in possession of knowledge of the details of the telephone, and the possible use of the telephone is limited.” —Engineer-in-Chief, British Post Office, 1887 “There’s an old story about the person who wished his computer were as easy to use as his telephone. That wish has come true, since I no longer know how to use my telephone.” —Attributed to B. Stroustrup, inventor of C++ Over the past 200 years, technological breakthroughs and new economies have emerged with remarkable regularity. In 1800, no information, goods, or services moved faster than they had for thousands of years. Two centuries of rapid technological advances and innovation have evolved communications and commerce from being tied to networks of waterways and (literally) horsepower to being tied to digital telecommunications networks. In the last half-decade, we have witnessed the emergence and power of the Internet as a means for electronic, “e,” -commerce. In the emerging period of e-commerce, many questions were raised: Would consumers adopt it? How would they behave? What did they want? How could companies capture or create value? What capabilities were required to make e-commerce viable? Today, the mobile Internet is emerging even faster, in part because providers, content partners, customers, and investors are leveraging lessons from e-commerce. Cellular carriers, both nationally and globally, have made significant advances to enable next generation data or “wireless Web” services and mobile, “m,” -commerce. Broadly defined, m-commerce involves an emerging set of applications and services people can access from their Webenabled mobile devices [10]. Yet, m-commerce is facing many obstacles as an emerging market, particularly in the U.S. For example, in addition to RAMIFICATIONS FOR WIRELESS DESIGN: ‘E’ ≠ ‘M’. UNDERSTANDING USABILITY in Mobile Commerce BY VISWANATH VENKATESH, V. RAMESH, AND ANNE P. MASSEY
lack of standards, cost and speed issues, a Yankee While a myriad of issues warrant attention, we focus on Group [12] survey suggests that U.S. consumers are an area that has been largely neglected--usability and not convinced they want or need mobile services and the user interface experience. We began this artide with think i too con plicated. This is in con- several quotations Iting the fact that issues of trast to other global markets in Asia and Europe where usability have been of interest for over a century. While going online" means reaching for a mobile handset, easy to use, the telephone was limited in use to voice not turning on a PC. In Korea, for example, reports communication. Today, the commercial benefit of suggest that one-third of all mobile phone subscribers understanding and improving the usability of wireless use their handsets for m-commerce activities [6 Web interfaces--delivered via mobile devices such as e In the U.S., despite the touted benefits of m-com- cell phones and PDAs--by consumers is enormous rce, several large companies are abandoning(Wells Fargo) or scaling back U.S.based wireless efforts to Usability and the User Interface focus on global markets (Amazon. com). Yet, carriers The user interface is the environment in which online and content partners are still investing and bright spots users conduct communication, information search, exist. EBay recently launched a new service that lets and transactions [3]. Thus, an important prerequisi customers bid more easily from mobile devices. for the success of e-commerce and m-commerce sites is According to a Yankee Group report[12], the new ser- ensuring that customers' experience, via the interface, vice has the correct success factors-priced right, speed, satisfies both their sensory and functional needs. Stud and ease of use ies have shown, for example, that user interface fea- Like e-commerce, m-commerce represents a huge tures, such as page and content design, are key opportunity for businesses to connect to consumers. determinants of sales in online stores [2].Yet,m-com- ASSESSING USABILITY (relative importance)of the MUG categories/subcat- We used a holistic measure of usability to compare egories across industries and access devices(PC vs. perceptions of wired and wireless Web sites. Th mobile handset) measure and instrument(see [1] for details regard Two sites each were chosen from each of four ing the metric and the instrument) are based on the industries: banking, news, shopping, and tourism, Microsoft Usability Guidelines (MUG; see [7]) representing both informational and transactional Briefly, MUG comprises five main categories: content oriented sites. The sites chosen had a Web site (informational and transactional capabilities of a accessible via a browser and a wireless site accessi site), ease of use(cognitive effort required in using ble via a WAP-enabled device. Since we were inter a site), made-for-the-medium(tailoring a site to fit ested in seeking participation from users who had a particular users needs), promotion(advertising of experience with the Internet as well as data-ori- a site), and emotion (affective reactions invoked by ented features on wireless devices, the study was a site). Each main category, except for promotion, conducted in a downtown movie theatre complex in has associated subcategories. Category/subcategory Helsinki, Finland. Briefly, participants(812 in total) examples include: contentrelevance (pertinence of browsed sites using a kiosk and responded to a the content to audience); ease of use/structure questionnaire. Specifically, the participants were Organization of the site); made-for-the-medium/ first prompted to provide their perceptions of the personalization(technology-oriented customization weights of the different categories/subcategories for of the site); emotion/plot(how the site piques a Web and wireless sites in a particular industry. An user's interest). Application of the MUG involves the aggregation across participants provided the mean omputation of usability by taking into account an weights for all sites in that industry. Then, the par individual's weighting of each category/multiple ticipants visited both the web(using a PC browser) subcategories and his or her rating (evaluation) of a and wireless(using a cell phone emulator) sites and site on the particular category/subcategories rated them on each of the different mug cate Itegories on a 10-poin How the Field Study was Conducted usability rating for each Web site(for a user)was ermined by computing perceptions of the usability of web and wireless sites ratings. An aggregation of the ratings across users details of the study design see [11]). The provided the mean ratings for a particular site within study allowed us to compare and contrast the weights each industry 54 December 2003/Vol 46, Ne. 12 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
54 December 2003/Vol. 46, No. 12 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM lack of standards, cost and speed issues, a Yankee Group [12] survey suggests that U.S. consumers are not convinced they want or need mobile services and many think it is simply too complicated. This is in contrast to other global markets in Asia and Europe where “going online” means reaching for a mobile handset, not turning on a PC. In Korea, for example, reports suggest that one-third of all mobile phone subscribers use their handsets for m-commerce activities [6]. In the U.S., despite the touted benefits of m-commerce, several large companies are abandoning (Wells Fargo) or scaling back U.S.-based wireless efforts to focus on global markets (Amazon.com). Yet, carriers and content partners are still investing and bright spots exist. EBay recently launched a new service that lets customers bid more easily from mobile devices. According to a Yankee Group report [12], the new service has the correct success factors—priced right, speed, and ease of use. Like e-commerce, m-commerce represents a huge opportunity for businesses to connect to consumers. While a myriad of issues warrant attention, we focus on an area that has been largely neglected—usability and the user interface experience. We began this article with several quotations highlighting the fact that issues of usability have been of interest for over a century. While easy to use, the telephone was limited in use to voice communication. Today, the commercial benefit of understanding and improving the usability of wireless Web interfaces—delivered via mobile devices such as cell phones and PDAs—by consumers is enormous. Usability and the User Interface The user interface is the environment in which online users conduct communication, information search, and transactions [3]. Thus, an important prerequisite for the success of e-commerce and m-commerce sites is ensuring that customers’ experience, via the interface, satisfies both their sensory and functional needs. Studies have shown, for example, that user interface features, such as page and content design, are key determinants of sales in online stores [2]. Yet, m-comASSESSING USABILITY We used a holistic measure of usability to compare perceptions of wired and wireless Web sites. The measure and instrument (see [1] for details regarding the metric and the instrument) are based on the Microsoft Usability Guidelines (MUG; see [7]). Briefly, MUG comprises five main categories: content (informational and transactional capabilities of a site), ease of use (cognitive effort required in using a site), made-for-the-medium (tailoring a site to fit a particular user’s needs), promotion (advertising of a site), and emotion (affective reactions invoked by a site). Each main category, except for promotion, has associated subcategories. Category/subcategory examples include: content/relevance (pertinence of the content to audience); ease of use/structure (organization of the site); made-for-the-medium/ personalization (technology-oriented customization of the site); emotion/plot (how the site piques a user’s interest). Application of the MUG involves the computation of usability by taking into account an individual’s weighting of each category/multiple subcategories and his or her rating (evaluation) of a site on the particular category/subcategories. How the Field Study Was Conducted Our field study was designed to explore consumers’ perceptions of the usability of Web and wireless sites (for full details of the study design see [11]). The study allowed us to compare and contrast the weights (relative importance) of the MUG categories/subcategories across industries and access devices (PC vs. mobile handset). Two sites each were chosen from each of four industries: banking, news, shopping, and tourism, representing both informational and transactional oriented sites. The sites chosen had a Web site accessible via a browser and a wireless site accessible via a WAP-enabled device. Since we were interested in seeking participation from users who had experience with the Internet as well as data-oriented features on wireless devices, the study was conducted in a downtown movie theatre complex in Helsinki, Finland. Briefly, participants (812 in total) browsed sites using a kiosk and responded to a questionnaire. Specifically, the participants were first prompted to provide their perceptions of the weights of the different categories/subcategories for Web and wireless sites in a particular industry. An aggregation across participants provided the mean weights for all sites in that industry. Then, the participants visited both the Web (using a PC browser) and wireless (using a cell phone emulator) sites and rated them on each of the different MUG categories/subcategories on a 10-point scale. The usability rating for each Web site (for a user) was determined by computing the sum of the weighted ratings. An aggregation of the ratings across users provided the mean ratings for a particular site within each industry. c
merce poses new challenges and questions. While the Web and wireless sites. Ease of use was significantly mobile phones and PDAs can provide access to an array more important in wireless contexts, largely due to the of new applications, they impose limitations such as subcategory structure. Similar to ease of use, and except small screen size, limited screen resolution, and cum- for the news industry, made-for-the-medium was sig bersome input mechanisms. Surveys of mobile Internet nificantly more important in the wireless context. Its users indicate usability is the biggest source of frustra- importance was due to the personalization subcategory. tion [5, 9]. Before wireless site designers can address the Even in the news industry significantly greater weights usability challenge, and before organizations can lever- were assigned to personalization in the wireless context. che commercial benefits of m-commerce, a deeper Overall, the greater weights assigned to content, ease of understanding of what aspects of usability are impor- use, and made-for-the-medium resulted in lower tant to users and how they may differ in a wireless con- weights being assigned to promotion and emotion for text is require Web site usability has received a Context of Mobile User Mobile Services ot of attention in both academic literature as well as trade [8, 9]. What have primarily emerged melling value Needs and Desires are sets of guidelines that provide Convenience pointers for improving various components of a Web page, such as the layout of a single Web page or Personalization for Design Devic the design of the structure for the egscreen size/input enue Sources for ntire Web site. However, these uidelines do not prescribe which L- specific aspects of usability are more users in different contexts. Furthermore, there is limited Both these categories were signif- dony, and railer critical or whether criticality may differ for different both Web and wireless Web sites uidance about which guidelines to implement in spe- icantly less important in the wireless context cific situations(for example, a primarily informational When we turn our attention to the usability ratings news site vs. a more transactional shopping site)or rela- of the Web and wireless Web sites in the four industries, tive to different mobile business models, such as mobile our results indicated sharp differences when comparing dvertising or marketing. Thus, understanding what is an organizations Web presence to its wireless presence, important to users is central to creating a more com- with the wireless sites being rated significantly lower in elling m-commerce experience and driving revenue all cases. The results clearly suggest that a successful sources. We pose the following questions: Are certain Web presence does not automatically lead to a success- aspects of usability more(or less)important to users of ful wireless Web presence. There was also considerable wireless Web sites than to users of traditional Web sites? variability in ratings between the wireless sites within an Does importance differ by type of industry? Finally, how industry, such as news, suggesting a lack of standard can organizations leverage this understanding in order industry-specific design guidelines to provide compelling value for consumers and drive revenues? Answers to these questions should provide Ramifications for Wireless Design insights to firms(re)designing wireless Web sites At a higher level, it is important for wireless to realize the mobile experience is fundamentally a dif- Results ferent use context. The experience is largely about sav- H the results of the sidebar for background information on our study for full details of the analyses and results see [11]). With personalization are essential to creating a positive wire regard to the usability weights, the overall pattern of less interface experience. At the same time, designers results suggested content was important regardless of must understand the value consumers derive from sav- whether a site was Web-based or wireless. However, ing time, location options, and convenience, and how when we delved into the subcategory weights for con- aspects of relevance, structure, and personalization can tent we found that for all four industries relevance was be leveraged in designing wireless sites to provide that significantly more important in the wireless context value. Given the small keypads and limited displa than in the Web context. Unlike content, in most of the interfaces of cell phones and PDAs, wireless site design- other categories there was a shift in the weights between ers should offer a small number of relevant features COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM December 2003/Vol 46, No 12 55
merce poses new challenges and questions. While mobile phones and PDAs can provide access to an array of new applications, they impose limitations such as small screen size, limited screen resolution, and cumbersome input mechanisms. Surveys of mobile Internet users indicate usability is the biggest source of frustration [5, 9]. Before wireless site designers can address the usability challenge, and before organizations can leverage the commercial benefits of m-commerce, a deeper understanding of what aspects of usability are important to users and how they may differ in a wireless context is required. Web site usability has received a lot of attention in both academic literature as well as trade press [8, 9]. What have primarily emerged are sets of guidelines that provide pointers for improving various components of a Web page, such as the layout of a single Web page or the design of the structure for the entire Web site. However, these guidelines do not prescribe which specific aspects of usability are more critical or whether criticality may differ for different users in different contexts. Furthermore, there is limited guidance about which guidelines to implement in specific situations (for example, a primarily informational news site vs. a more transactional shopping site) or relative to different mobile business models, such as mobile advertising or marketing. Thus, understanding what is important to users is central to creating a more compelling m-commerce experience and driving revenue sources. We pose the following questions: Are certain aspects of usability more (or less) important to users of wireless Web sites than to users of traditional Web sites? Does importance differ by type of industry? Finally, how can organizations leverage this understanding in order to provide compelling value for consumers and drive revenues? Answers to these questions should provide insights to firms (re)designing wireless Web sites. Results Here, we summarize the results of our assessments (see the sidebar for background information on our study; for full details of the analyses and results see [11]). With regard to the usability weights, the overall pattern of results suggested content was important regardless of whether a site was Web-based or wireless. However, when we delved into the subcategory weights for content we found that for all four industries relevance was significantly more important in the wireless context than in the Web context. Unlike content, in most of the other categories there was a shift in the weights between the Web and wireless sites. Ease of use was significantly more important in wireless contexts, largely due to the subcategory structure. Similar to ease of use, and except for the news industry, made-for-the-medium was significantly more important in the wireless context. Its importance was due to the personalization subcategory. Even in the news industry significantly greater weights were assigned to personalization in the wireless context. Overall, the greater weights assigned to content, ease of use, and made-for-the-medium resulted in lower weights being assigned to promotion and emotion for both Web and wireless Web sites. Both these categories were significantly less important in the wireless context. When we turn our attention to the usability ratings of the Web and wireless Web sites in the four industries, our results indicated sharp differences when comparing an organization’s Web presence to its wireless presence, with the wireless sites being rated significantly lower in all cases. The results clearly suggest that a successful Web presence does not automatically lead to a successful wireless Web presence. There was also considerable variability in ratings between the wireless sites within an industry, such as news, suggesting a lack of standard industry-specific design guidelines. Ramifications for Wireless Design At a higher level, it is important for wireless designers to realize the mobile experience is fundamentally a different use context. The experience is largely about saving time, varying locations, and convenience. Our results strongly suggest that relevance, structure, and personalization are essential to creating a positive wireless interface experience. At the same time, designers must understand the value consumers derive from saving time, location options, and convenience, and how aspects of relevance, structure, and personalization can be leveraged in designing wireless sites to provide that value. Given the small keypads and limited display interfaces of cell phones and PDAs, wireless site designers should offer a small number of relevant features COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM December 2003/Vol. 46, No. 12 55 Context of Mobile User Experience Usability Needs and Desires Relevance Structure Personalization Leverage for Design Time Pressure Location Convenience Device Limitations, e.g. screen size/input Mobile Services Compelling Value to Consumers Revenue Sources for Providers Linking context, usability, and value
rather than numerous offerings. Just like in the early petitor sites, an organization may be able to identify lays of e-commerce, when site designers had to move weak areas that can be a focus of site redesign efforts. In eyond trying to lay out content like they had laid out addition to the context of the mobile user experience, print media, m-commerce site designers must move other factors influencing usability must be considered. beyond trying to shrink Web pages to fit a cell phone For example, cultural differences have been found to or PDA. Similarly, design efforts should ensure site influence online behavior [3] and thus, may influence navigation is not cumbersome and users can find rele- the relative importance of the various categories and vant content with minimal effort. Simple menus, sub-categories. Further work is also needed to under- forms, or icons will allow users to navigate with little or stand how prior experience or adoption life-cycle stages no typing. Furthermore, our results strongly suggest can influence perceptions of usability. Our study that a key to success in the wireless context(more so involved participants from Finland, a country with than in the Web context)is the ability to present con- deep penetration and utilization of cell phones. Results tent to users in a customized fashion may be different with participants from other coun- Importantly, while mobile devices offer tries, or geographic regions, where adoption is in an anywhere/anytime access to services, the goals con- earlier life-cycle stage sumers are trying to achieve via a cell phone or PDa are T oday, m-commerce looks in many ways much like not the same goals usually desired or attainable in a e-commerce did in 1995. At that time, the future of e- Web(PC-based) context. As noted previously, in a commerce was not clear. Yet, as of 2002, the business- wireless context, goals are often conducted relative to to-consumer e-commerce market had grown to $843 some time or location pressure [10]. For example, billion [5]. Like e-commerce, opportunities for success while consumers may do financial planning or organize in m-commerce will go to those companies that focus a vacation via a Web site, they are unlikely to do so via on creating compelling value for customers, founded a wireless site. However, wireless sites can provide ser- on a deep understanding of the mobile experience. C vices to support time-critical activities like selling declining stocks or obtaining driving directions while REFERENCES on vacation. Similarly, a wireless shopping site can be 1. Agarwal, R, and Venkatesh, v. Assessinga firms We presence: A Heuris- designed to present users with targeted content such as 2Ak132016m时m clothing items on sale, based on prior knowledge of 2. Bellman, S, Lohse, G Johnson, E. Predictors of online buying their preferences and/or knowledge of their current behavior. Commun. ACM., 12(Dc. 1999),32-38 location, such as proximity to a shopping mall. The fig 3. Chau, P, Cole, M, Massey, A P, Montoya-Weiss, M, and OKeefe, R.M. Cultural differences in consumer's online behaviors. Commn. ACM ure on the previous page illustrates that by understand 10(Oc.2002),45-50 4. Clark, E. W. Wirele ing the context of the mobile experience, designers can dents, and college T eles Business and Techmology leverage the desire and need for specific usability aspects (August/September 2002),160-161 in order to offer mobile services that create value and 5. Forrester Research. Segmenting Europe's Mobile Consumers. 2002. 6. InStat/MDR. Worldwide Wireless Data/internet Market: Bright Spots in a generate revenues. ark Industry. 2002. 7. Keeker, K Improving Web-site usability and appeal: Guidelines compiled Conclusion by MSN usability research; msdn. microsoft. com/library/ default. asp url=/ Our study suggests organizations will be well served to 8.Nielsen, J. User interface directions for the Web. Commun. ACM 42,I not be complacent with their wireless site design efforts an.1999,65-72. AdominatingWebpresencedoesnotnecessarilytransNielsenNormanGroup,2000;www.nngrouP.com/reports/wap late into a dominant wireless Web presence: e= 'm. 10. Sadh, N. M-Commerne: Tecbmologis, Servics, and Busines Models For the industries we studied, the significant differences 11. Venkatesh, V. and Ramesh, V. Usability of wicb and widlar in usability ratings for wireless sites compared to their ing the Applicability of the Microsoft Usability Guidelines Instruam eb counterparts suggests much work must be done in mation Systems Technical Reports and Working Paper, We the wireless contexts. Furthermore, the strong contrast 12. Yankee Group Research. Mobile Uer Survey Rosuds Part 1: will Next Gem- in weights between Web and wireless contexts has ration Data Services Close the Value Giap?2002 implications for site design(or redesign) efforts in the wireless context. Since the context of the mobile experi- VISWANATH VENKATESH (wvenkate@ rhsmith. umd.edu)is an ence is different from a PC-based Web experience, what associate professor of information systems at the University of aryland is important to consumers is also different. V. RAMESH(venkat@indiana. edu) is an associate professor of We strongly favor conducting usability studies using information systems at Indiana University systematic methods such as the MUG guidelines in ANNE P. MASSEY (massey @indiana. edu) is a professor and chair of order to understand the overall weighting scheme used the information systems department at Indiana University by customers By benchmarking its site against com- o2003 ACM 0002-0782/03/1200$5.00 56 December 2003/Vol 46, No 12 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
rather than numerous offerings. Just like in the early days of e-commerce, when site designers had to move beyond trying to lay out content like they had laid out print media, m-commerce site designers must move beyond trying to shrink Web pages to fit a cell phone or PDA. Similarly, design efforts should ensure site navigation is not cumbersome and users can find relevant content with minimal effort. Simple menus, forms, or icons will allow users to navigate with little or no typing. Furthermore, our results strongly suggest that a key to success in the wireless context (more so than in the Web context) is the ability to present content to users in a customized fashion. Importantly, while mobile devices offer anywhere/anytime access to services, the goals consumers are trying to achieve via a cell phone or PDA are not the same goals usually desired or attainable in a Web (PC-based) context. As noted previously, in a wireless context, goals are often conducted relative to some time or location pressure [10]. For example, while consumers may do financial planning or organize a vacation via a Web site, they are unlikely to do so via a wireless site. However, wireless sites can provide services to support time-critical activities like selling declining stocks or obtaining driving directions while on vacation. Similarly, a wireless shopping site can be designed to present users with targeted content such as clothing items on sale, based on prior knowledge of their preferences and/or knowledge of their current location, such as proximity to a shopping mall. The figure on the previous page illustrates that by understanding the context of the mobile experience, designers can leverage the desire and need for specific usability aspects in order to offer mobile services that create value and generate revenues. Conclusion Our study suggests organizations will be well served to not be complacent with their wireless site design efforts. A dominating Web presence does not necessarily translate into a dominant wireless Web presence: ‘e’ ≠ ‘m’. For the industries we studied, the significant differences in usability ratings for wireless sites compared to their Web counterparts suggests much work must be done in the wireless contexts. Furthermore, the strong contrast in weights between Web and wireless contexts has implications for site design (or redesign) efforts in the wireless context. Since the context of the mobile experience is different from a PC-based Web experience, what is important to consumers is also different. We strongly favor conducting usability studies using systematic methods such as the MUG guidelines in order to understand the overall weighting scheme used by customers. By benchmarking its site against competitor sites, an organization may be able to identify weak areas that can be a focus of site redesign efforts. In addition to the context of the mobile user experience, other factors influencing usability must be considered. For example, cultural differences have been found to influence online behavior [3] and thus, may influence the relative importance of the various categories and sub-categories. Further work is also needed to understand how prior experience or adoption life-cycle stages can influence perceptions of usability. Our study involved participants from Finland, a country with deep penetration and utilization of cell phones. Results may be different with participants from other countries, or geographic regions, where adoption is in an earlier life-cycle stage. Today, m-commerce looks in many ways much like e-commerce did in 1995. At that time, the future of ecommerce was not clear. Yet, as of 2002, the businessto-consumer e-commerce market had grown to $843 billion [5]. Like e-commerce, opportunities for success in m-commerce will go to those companies that focus on creating compelling value for customers, founded on a deep understanding of the mobile experience. References 1. Agarwal, R., and Venkatesh, V. Assessing a firm’s Web presence: A Heuristic evaluation procedure for the measurement of usability. Information Systems Research 13, 2 (2002), 168–186. 2. Bellman, S., Lohse, G.L., and Johnson, E.J. Predictors of online buying behavior. Commun. ACM 42, 12 (Dec. 1999), 32–38. 3. Chau, P., Cole, M., Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M., and O’Keefe, R.M. Cultural differences in consumer’s online behaviors. Commun. ACM 45, 10 (Oct. 2002), 45–50. 4. Clark, E.W. Wireless coupon program gets high marks from retailers, students, and college IT department. Wireless Business and Technology, (August/September 2002), 160–161. 5. Forrester Research. Segmenting Europe’s Mobile Consumers. 2002. 6. InStat/MDR. Worldwide Wireless Data/Internet Market: Bright Spots in a Dark Industry. 2002. 7. Keeker, K. Improving Web-site usability and appeal: Guidelines compiled by MSN usability research; msdn.microsoft.com/library/ default.asp?url=/ library/enus/dnsiteplan/html/improvingsiteusa.asp. 8. Nielsen, J. User interface directions for the Web. Commun. ACM 42, 1 (Jan. 1999), 65–72. 9. Ramsay, M. and Nielsen, J. WAP Usability: Déjà vu: 1994 All Over Again. Nielsen Norman Group, 2000; www.NNgroup.com/reports/wap. 10. Sadeh, N. M-Commerce: Technologies, Services, and Business Models. Wiley, New York, 2002. 11. Venkatesh, V. and Ramesh, V. Usability of Web and Wireless Sites: Extending the Applicability of the Microsoft Usability Guidelines Instrument. Information Systems Technical Reports and Working Paper, TR134-1; www.kelley.iu.edu/ardennis/wp/. 12. Yankee Group Research. Mobile User Survey Results Part 1: Will Next Generation Data Services Close the Value Gap? 2002. Viswanath Venkatesh (vvenkate@rhsmith.umd.edu) is an associate professor of information systems at the University of Maryland. V. Ramesh (venkat@indiana.edu) is an associate professor of information systems at Indiana University. Anne P. Massey (amassey@indiana.edu) is a professor and chair of the information systems department at Indiana University. © 2003 ACM 0002-0782/03/1200 $5.00 c 56 December 2003/Vol. 46, No. 12 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
